Andrew Quarless Might Be Packers Fullback

We know tight end Andrew Quarless can block — at least when compared to Jermichael Finley. That prowess, combined with John Kuhn’s injury status, might make him the Green Bay Packers starting fullback on Sunday.

Stop us if this sounds familiar. Kuhn has… wait for it… a hamstring injury. Just like every other injured guy on the Packers roster.

The good news is Quarless has had at least a little success in the role. He was the lead blocker on Starks’ 32-yard touchdown run against Washington. The bad news is, he doesn’t sound overly confident about the role.

“I don’t even want to think about that,” Quarless said of having to replace Kuhn. “Hopefully, Kuhn’s ready. He brings a lot to this team. He does a lot. We’re back their together in pass protection, he brings so much wisdom to this game. I would hope he’s not down. But if he is, we’re going to try to figure it out.”

Beyond trying to figure that out, Quarless says he’s still not back in game form after missing all of 2012 and most of the preseason.

“I’m still kind of warming up,” he said. “Practice can only get you prepared so much, so when those hats are flying around out there going full speed, it just helps you. It helps you more than practice reps. I think this firat quarter of the season is getting back to things for me.”

Kuhn’s status is up in the air as for right now, but we do know one thing. The Packers are going to have tough time running against the Bengals on Sunday, regardless of who the starting running back and fullback are.

They’re seventh in the league against the run and they’re giving up only 2.8 yards per carry. And yeah, part of the reason for that is they played Pittsburgh last week, but make no mistake.

Hopefully we don’t actually try to run the ball too much against the Bungholes. They have one of the best, if not THE best, front 7 in the league. I’d like to see us use the screen game as a way to slow down their pass rush rather than running. It’d be nice to see Franklin go out for some short passes. There’s absolutely no need to try to “make a statement” by over committing to our fledgling run game. I say forget the run and Let Mr. Quarless help in pass protection along with Starks.

Who else is injured and unavailable for Sunday? I assume Casey Hayward and Burnett will be watching from the sidelines. That’s very disturbing, as our pass coverage has been the weakest part of our team IMO.

Inwould be surprised if Hayward, Burnett, or Lacy play. The secondary was better last week than Week 1 (doesn’t take much), I think it’s obvious that House is the better player than Hyde. Furthermore, Dalton’s not a runner, so the pass d’s performance will likely be down to how well Shields, Williams, and House and the LBs can do battle with Green, Eiffert, and Gresham in man (instead of zone) as well as the DL’s and LBs’ ability to get to push tge pocket.

Except for obvious run situations, you might as well call it a front 6 for Cincy, doesn’t matter how good their front 7 is, because they are going to be playing nickel and dime most the game against us, the same as everyone else.

The only alternative to that is matching a safety with Cobb and a linebacker with Finley, and yeah, they aren’t likely to try that.

This is scary: “…we’re going to try to figure it out”
If it’s not Quarless, it’s Lattimore or some other player.

Fresh from training camp, and having been with the team for multiple seasons… this guy still doesn’t know WTF is going on.

The coaches have to come to grips with the fact that today’s player is young, likely with poor study habits, and just flat-out not-so-smart — and for a team that churns 20% of it’s roster every year, one face out of five is totally new to their convoluted bullshit.

“They’re going to try I figure it out” doesn’t necessarily imply that Quarless doesn’t know the FB schemes, it very possibly means they are going to try to identify which particular plays Quarless is beat suites to run from that position. He likely knows most or all of the routes for the FB but he always practices those plays in a TEs role, now he has to practice in the FB role in order to actualize it’s responsibilities and execution method. Awareness of assignment is one aspect, execution is a horse of another color.

What’s your basis for stating that this era’s players are less intelligent? Do you have the average IQ scores for every decade of the sport? Have you discovered a unifying theory of intelligence? Are you sure you didn’t mean more “knowledgeable” rather than “intelligent”?